Night Stalker,

While you're educating me, care to say how the F18 Hornet stacks up?

Plus, with today's (and yesterday's, considering how old they are) missiles, such as the Phoenix, how much does dogfighting really matter anymore?

<font color="cyan">I believe in the eyes of the U.S air force, they consider the F-16 to be the worlds best fighter plane.

And the F-16 and the F-15 are too different to compare, so it was a stupid comment.</font>

Well the FA-18 came from the same contract bid line as the F-16. But since the Air Force and Navy had slightly different requirements, two machines rolled off the line. It is sturdier than the F-16, but not as agile. It is currently going through upgrades.

The AIM-54 Phoenix missle is a long range weapon. In this day of joint operations and given the wide proliferation of US, French, British, and Soviet technology, long range combat is frowned upon. Even with sophisicated IFF (Identify Friend or Foe) systems, you really can not tell whether that MIG or Tornado is the enemy or that F-16 is a friend. And no, IFF transponders are not shared, they are very closely guared (until the SIGINT guys on either side cracks them).The US uses the AAMRAM which is a med range weapon. Both the French and Russians have a comprable missle, all are "fire and forget".

Also, the question you ask is the age old arms vs armor. They both evolve together. So as missile tech gets better, so does ECM (Electronic Countermeasures) (and in turn ECCM - counter countermeasures). So yes, dog fighting is a very valuable skill - even if all you are trying to do is to evade that nasty missile homing in you.

[ 01-21-2003, 01:52 PM: Message edited by: Night Stalker ]

Well.....
Sorry I cause[d] you to get your panties in a bunch.

edit: for the [d]

[ 01-21-2003, 02:05 PM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

You guys are testing my memory here, but the Phoenix is used for Fleet Defense primarily isn't it? Range was 120 miles or so, and the F14 was developed as a platform for launching these beasts. Able to engage 6 targets and splash them before they could get close enough to launch Anti-ship missiles like the Exocet that nailed the Vincenze (spelled wrong and maybe the wrong name) during the Falklands. They're expensive too, which has limited their use, but I wouldn't be surprised to see them still in use today, a carrier at sea doesn't need to worry as much about friendly fire since they're a fairly stand-off platform.

F-16 is a great plane, but my personal favorite is still the A-10. [img]smile.gif[/img]

Re: The Phoenix

Allow me to address this. The Phoenix is a good longrange missile, but it was designed to intercept Bear bombers in the seventies and just doesn't do well against fighter aircraft. BTW, 120 miles range is optimistic - 75nm is probably a better estimate.

The reason it wouldn't do well against fighters has to do with the physics of how the missile travels; all of the missiles fuel is burned in the first 15 seconds of flight where it quickly accelerates to a peak velocity of mach 5 and an altitude of 100,000 feet. It's all downhill :D from there...the missile trades altitude for momentum until it gets into proximity to the target and detonates. The problem against fighters, especially at long range, is that the missile has lost so much energy by the time it gets into proximity that an experienced fighter pilot would have no trouble outmaneuvering the missile.

Bugaboos include the unusual attack profile of the missile (the missile literally falls from the sky, and a pilot could very well not notice the incoming missile until it was too late) - and the F14 has available a very good radar mode that does not trip most RWRs.

As to the relevance of dogfighting, the existance of the F22 and the Eurofighter both give credibility to the continuing viability of ACM. Both have incredible short range missile systems (the AIM-9X and the brit equivalent, can't remember the designation offhand) with "over the shoulder" launch capability and vectored thrust which gives unparralled maneuverability.

Very interesting topic, btw, I could go on for quite a while. [img]tongue.gif[/img]

EDIT> the brit system was the Python, I believe.

[ 01-21-2003, 05:50 PM: Message edited by: Sir Krustin ]

<font color="cyan">Oh, I forgot, cos I'm getting so mad.</font>

You're talking about the Su-31, it's in service I believe and Sukhoi's trying to market it. Apparently it's quite a kickass plane, a real eye-opener to western intelligence.

I wouldn't agree. The F15 is what is called an Air Superiority aircraft, this means it is meant to stand in the field of battle and reign supreme - and it does an excellent job of it. The F16 edges it out in maneuverability, but in a stand up knife-fight, the skill of the pilots involved is far more important than the slight edge in maneuverability the F16 enjoys.

Take a look at those massive engines the F15 has - it has tremendous energy available for turning and climbing; it's also faster and longer legged than the F16.

Give me an F15 against an F16 and I'll win every time.

Sir K - does that mean I'm vindicated from the scathing I got for saying the F15E was considered the best?

Oh, and those Phoenix missiles. I didn't know that about their trajectory and use of energy. However, it is my understanding that they can whip a 16G turn. Now that tells me you'd better have one damned good ECM/chaff work going on, cause no pilot can outmanuever that - physical limitations of the human form and all.

Guys, guys. Enough already. I get to see my favourite yank tank go the hard yards and all you can talk about is the jets! Oh well.